

N 




» 







* 







THE 

GOSPELS 

,.-r jC& 

BY 

A LAYMAN 




Sl 


£&L- 

t'tHo 


THE GOSPELS 

BY 

A LAYMAN 



THE 

GOSPELS 

BY 

A LAYMAN 


PRINTED AT 
THE GILLISS PRESS 
NEW YORK 

1916 




COPYRIGHT, 1916 
BY 

GHERARDI DAVIS 


transferred from 

.'.'.rcjrian *s Office. 

SEP 25 ) im 



TO MY FRIEND 
EDWARD E. SPRAGUE 
WITH WHOM 

I HAVE HAD MANY INTERESTING TALKS 
ON THE SUBJECT CONTAINED 
IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES 

GHERARDI DAVIS 


NEW YORK 
APRIL, 1916 


T HERE is nothing that will advance the 
cause of true religion among all the 
people more than the use and knowledge 
of Holy Scripture. The unchaining of the Bible 
and taking it out of the exclusive control of the 
Church; the trusting of it freely to the people, 
were the setting free of spiritual forces that have 
revolutionized human society. And now the 
day has come when scholarship and criticism of 
both the Old and New Testaments are not found 
exclusively among ecclesiastics and university 
professors, but in an increasing degree among 
the thoughtful laymen of all professions. The 
Church distrusted the wisdom of giving the Bible 
freely to the people ; she is timid now when men 
are seeking to know the truth and the whole 
truth about God’s word ; she is anxiously asking 
what criticism and scholarship will do with the 
Bible. But we must always trust freedom; for 
we can do nothing against the truth but only for 

vii 


the truth. Those devout laymen who bring 
their earnest and reasonable thought to this 
study, will bear witness to the power of God’s 
word to cleanse and uplift and inspire their lives, 
and the life of the world. So let us rejoice in 
books like this. 

W. M. G. 


The Dean’s Office 

Cathedral of St. John the Divine 

New York, April 25, 1916. 


S OME years ago a friend, to whose sermons I 
listened with great interest while he was 
my rector — he has now been advanced to 
higher honors in the Episcopal Church— in answer 
to a question 1 put to him referred me to a well- 
known book on the history of the New Testament. 
1 had for some time wondered why no preacher 
ever touched on many of the questions which 
came to my mind, as 1 listened in church to the 
reading of the Gospels, or as I read them myself; 
for, as others have no doubt done, 1 often wondered 
how those four books came to be written, who 
their authors really were, whence those authors 
derived their knowledge of the facts relating to 
our Saviour’s life and the words He spoke, as they 
are recorded in the Gospels, when the Gospels 
were written, and many other like matters. 
Thus my interest in this subject grew, until from 
the book my friend referred me to 1 went on to 
others, equally interesting. Several of these 


IX 


books were replete with Greek, Latin and Hebrew, 
and as 1 knew nothing of the latter language, and 
to my regret, had forgotten most of my Greek 
and Latin, I did not assume to question the 
deductions from, or the interpretations of, the 
originals made by students, and I was of course 
obliged to hold to the English text alone. 

1 soon found that I was reading a subject of 
extraordinary interest, and what, as a layman, I 
thus learned from studying the Gospels and the 
books on the New Testament, I have written down 
in the following pages, perhaps with too great 
brevity, but with deep reverence. 


THE GOSPELS 

BY 

A LAYMAN 



C^e fiDlDcsst of 
€be ©ojspel Slpanugcrlptss 

{ SUPPOSE that every one who has read the 
Gospels at all carefully has observed how 
totally different the first three are from the 
fourth. Such a reader may have gone further 
and have noticed how much alike many passages 
are in the first three Gospels. No doubt, too, 
an attentive reader has often wondered how it 
was that only two of the Gospels bear the names 
of men who were of Christ’s twelve chosen dis- 
ciples, and who therefore were with Him during 
His ministry. It seems strange that the second 
Gospel should have been written by one who 
during Christ’s ministry must have been a mere 
lad, and that the Gospel according to St. Luke 
is by one who does not even intimate that he ever 
saw our Saviour or heard Him speak. Again, it 
is evident to even a casual reader that not only is 
the sequence of events not the same in the several 

3 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

Gospels, but that the Gospels do not at all contain 
the same matter. Thus, the Lord’s Prayer, which 
is probably repeated more frequently than any 
other words of the New Testament, is to be found 
only in St. Matthew and St. Luke. The institu- 
tion of the Lord’s Supper, by the breaking of bread 
and partaking of wine, is not mentioned by St. 
John, whose account of the Last Supper is far 
more in detail in other respects than that con- 
tained in the other Gospels. The wonderful 
miracle of the Raising of Lazarus is told only by 
St. John, while the Ascension is told only by St. 
Mark and St. Luke, and it is a question whether 
this passage in St. Mark is genuine. 

For convenience of reference, and as an aid to 
students, the Gospels have been printed in parallel 
columns, the same incidents being placed to- 
gether, although their sequence in the several 
Gospels is by no means always the same. Such 
a book is known as a “Harmony of the Gospels,” 
and the idea of a Harmony is not at all modern. 
If, now, this book is even only glanced over, it 
is impossible not to notice how very similar is the 
language of the first three Gospels, verse after 
verse at times being in almost the same words. 
In literature, when such similarity of language 

4 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

appears in books by different authors on the same 
subject, the suggestion occurs that they either 
used an identical original or that one of the authors 
is the original of the others. And very early in 
Bible history search was made for the original 
from which the first three Gospels were drawn. 

Before describing the result of this search, ref- 
erence should be made to the manner in which 
the Gospels have been handed down to us. Of 
course, like all works written before printing 
was invented, they appear in manuscript form. 
Ancient manuscripts are on vellum or on papyrus. 
The latter, if removed to a damp climate, has 
usually rotted and been lost; the vellum has lasted 
for centuries. No matter how the original was 
written, whether by the author himself or by a 
scribe under his dictation, copies were made as a 
rule by dictation to a body of scribes, just as, 
when 1 was a law clerk, before the days of type- 
writing machines, we clerks would be gathered 
together in a room to make copies of a paper from 
dictation, where they were needed in a hurry. 
Manuscripts written without punctuation and in 
letters all of the same size, with no distinction 
between capitals and other letters, are called 
“uncial” manuscripts, and the oldest and most 

5 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

perfect Gospel manuscripts, three in number, are 
of this character. They are: 

(1) The Codex Vaticanus Graecus, which has 
been in the Vatican Library in Rome since 1481, 
at least. It was written in the fourth century 
and is, like the others, in Greek and on vellum 

(2) The Codex Sinaiticus, discovered in a 
monastery on Mount Sinai, and now at Petro- 
grad. It is considered certain that it was at Caes- 
area in the seventh century, it having been writ- 
ten in the fourth century, but later than the Codex 
Vaticanus. 

(3) The Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth cen- 
tury, now in the British Museum. 

There are pieces of an older third century man- 
uscript, partly in London, partly in Philadelphia, 
but it is very fragmentary. 

Last winter several sheets of the Codex Vati- 
canus, if I remember correctly, were to be seen 
in photographic reproduction at the Public Li- 
brary. A very ingenious method of photograph- 
ing manuscripts has been invented, and they can 
be had in reproduction quite readily. The three 
Codices referred to are the great authorities for 
the New Testament text, and they are very much 
nearer the time when the authors of the New 
6 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

Testament lived than are the manuscripts of 
the works of many an ancient author. 

In the early days, the Gospels were not always 
placed in the same order. St. Matthew appears 
to have always been first, but, while in the East- 
ern Church the sequence was like that to which 
we are accustomed, in the Western Church St. 
John usually followed St. Matthew. 

These old texts of the Gospels have been stud- 
ied as few, if any, other books; similarity of style 
and composition have been gone over with the 
greatest care; even the use of words has been 
studied. And this has been done with all the 
more care from a literary point of view, because 
the three first Gospels are unique in this, that, 
written at about the same time, they each de- 
scribe the life and teachings of the same person. 
There is no parallel to this in ancient literature. 

The Gospels, it will be noticed, have been pre- 
served just as any other ancient writings— like the 
works of Homer, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Plato, 
Caesar, Cicero, Horace, Virgil, and all the others, 
of the genuineness of which there is no doubt; 
and I cannot conceive of any honest question 
being raised against the genuineness of the 
Gospels. 


7 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

The three first Gospels are known as the Sy- 
noptic Gospels, because, combined, they present 
a general and harmonized view of Christ’s life. 


Che (lEtogpel accovDmg to ^>t. <Hpat1i 

T HE Gospel according to St. Mark is uni- 
versally considered the oldest of all four 
Gospels. Mark, it will be remembered, 
was the companion of Paul and Barnabas, over 
whom a serious dispute arose, as is recounted in 
Acts (XV. 37, 38). Mark is referred to in various 
Epistles and in Acts, and in 1 . Peter (V. 13), St. 
Peter calls him, ‘ ‘Marcus, my son. ” He was with 
St. Peter in Rome, and Papias (a Bishop of Hier- 
apolis, and a Christian writer of the second cen- 
tury) says that Mark wrote down what he heard 
from Peter. That is, Mark must have taken down 
Christ’s life and words from Peter’s dictation, or 
have written down from what he heard Peter 
preach, a story of Christ’s life and His words. It 
is asserted with great ingenuity that the present 
Gospel is made up of an original work by Mark, 
which has been edited, as we would say today, 
by another person. But with equal skill, it is 
9 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

shown that the Gospel is a homogeneous work 
and hence original. I am inclined to believe that 
it is by the hand of St. Mark, even if it is an elab- 
oration of an earlier work, and even if it is gener- 
ally admitted that the last nine verses are not of 
the original. 

By the time of the death of St. Peter and St. 
Paul (A. D. 64 or 65) the necessity for a written 
Gospel must have become very apparent, How 
some of those, to whom Peter and Paul and the 
other writers sent their epistles, became familiar 
with Christ’s life and ministry through word$ of 
mouth, is told in Acts (as for example at XI. 19- 
21), to which book we would naturally turn for 
this information. The Epistles most certainly 
presuppose a thorough knowledge of the words 
and life of our Saviour, for His life is not given in 
the Epistles; His miracles (except the Resur- 
rection) are never referred to; and His words are 
rarely quoted, and then not as they appear in the 
Gospels. It was therefore but natural as time 
went on that through Peter, who was with Christ 
in all His ministry, a book of the life and sayings 
of our Saviour should first come into existence, 
even if he were not its author; for oral traditions 
are decidedly unreliable in important matters. 

10 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

St. Mark’s Gospel makes no reference to the 
birth of Christ or John the Baptist, but begins with 
the latter’s preaching. Its chronology is prob- 
ably the most correct. It was written, as indeed 
were all the Gospels, in Greek, and is supposed 
to date from before the destruction ofjerusalem, 
which was in A. D. 70. It has always borne St. 
Mark’s name. It would be beyond the scope of 
these pages to discuss at any length the theolog- 
ical side of this or the other Synoptic Gospels. I 
will only say that St. Mark’s Gospel is the sim- 
plest in language of all four Gospels. 

I now come to an extraordinarily interesting 
fact, which was discovered very early by students 
of the Gospels. If the reader of these pages will 
turn to a Harmony of the Gospels, and if he goes 
no further than the index of parallel matter, he 
will very soon notice that virtually all that is in 
St. Mark appears also in St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
Identity of language in individual sentences is very 
easily discovered. For example, in the account 
of the raising of Jairus’s daughter, the multitude’s 
opinion of Jesus, when He says the maid is asleep, 
not dead, is expressed in all three Gospels by the 
sentence: “They laughed Him to scorn.” Similar 


11 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

instances are the language of the sentence of the 
House Divided against itself, so well known to 
us Americans through Lincoln’s use of it; the 
sentence in which is described how Simon was 
made to bear the cross; the verse describing the 
sending out of the Twelve. 

In the story of Jairus's daughter, the whole 
incident is alike in the three Gospels, and in many 
other cases not only is the incident, but the lan- 
guage used in describing it, the same. Thus, 
the story of the Paralytic borne into Christ’s 
presence by Four Men, the Parable of the Sower, 
the Three Questions of the Jewish Rulers, the 
Transfiguration, the Rich Young Ruler, the Dis- 
course on the Destruction ofjerusalem.the Agony 
at Gethsemane, are astonishingly alike. As I 
have not space for all these passages I will quote 
but two from each Gospel; the first, a passage 
known to every communicant, reads thus: 

ST. MATTHEW ST. MARK ST. LUKE 

xxvi. 26-30 xiv. 22-26 xxii. 17-20 

And as they were eat- And as they did eat, And he took the cup, 
ing, Jesus took bread Jesus took bread, and and gave thanks, and 
and blessed it, and brake blessed, and brake it, said, Take this, and 
it, and gave it to the dis- and gave to them, and divide it among your- 
ciples, and said, Take, said. Take, eat; this is selves; for I say unto 
eat; this is my body, my body. And he took you, I will not drink of 
And he took the cup, the cup, and when he the fruit of the vine, un- 
and gave thanks, and had given thanks, he til the kingdom of God 


12 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 


gave it to them, saying, 
Drink ye all of it; for 
this is my blood of the 
new testament, which is 
shed for many for the 
remission of sins. But 
I say unto you, I will not 
drink henceforth of this 
fruit of the vine, until 
that day when I drink it 
new with you in my 
Father’s kingdom. And 
when they had sung a 
hymn, they went out 
into the mount of Olives. 


gave it to them; and 
they all drank of it. 
And he said unto them. 
This is my blood of the 
new testament, which is 
shed for many. Verily I 
say unto you, I will 
drink no more of the 
fruit of the vine, until 
that day that I drink it 
new in the kingdom of 
God. And when they 
had sung a hymn, they 
went out into the Mount 
of Olives. 


shall come. And he 
took bread, and gave 
thanks, and brake it, 
and gave unto them, 
saying, This is my body 
which is given for you: 
this do in remembrance 
of me. Likewise also 
the cup after supper, 
saying. This cup is the 
new testament in my 
blood, which is shed for 
you. 


And then for a group of passages, more in the 
nature of a description of an event, there is the 
Transfiguration, which reads in the three Synoptic 
Gospels as follows: 


ST. MATTHEW 

xvii. 1-9 

And after six days 
J esus taketh Peter, 
James, and John his 
brother, and bringeth 
them up into a high 
mountain apart, and 
was transfigured before 
them: and His face did 
shine as the sun, and 
His raiment was white 
as the light. And, be- 
hold, there appeared 
unto them Moses and 
Elias talking with Him. 
Then answered Peter, 
and said unto Je$8s, 


ST. MARK 

ix. 2-9 

And after six days 
Jesus taketh with him 
Peter, and James, and 
John, and leadeth them 
up into a high mountain 
apart by themselves: 
and He was transfigured 
before them. And His 
raiment became shin- 
ing, exceeding white as 
snow; so as no fuller on 
earth can white them. 
And there appeared un- 
tothem Eliaswith 
Moses; and they were 
talking with Jesus. And 

1 3 


ST. LUKE 

ix. 28-36 

And it came to pass 
about an eight days 
after these sayings, He 
took Peter and John and 
James, and went up into 
a mountain to pray. 
And as He prayed, the 
fashion of His counte- 
nance was altered, and 
His raiment was white 
and glistering. And be- 
hold, there talked with 
him two men, which 
were Moses and Elias: 
who appeared in glory, 
and spake of His decease 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 


Lord, it is good f or us, 
to be here: if Thou wilt, 
let us make here three 
tabernacles, one for 
Thee, and one for Moses, 
and one for Elias, 
While he yet spake, be- 
hold, a bright cloud 
overshadowed them: 
and behold a voice out 
of the cloud, which said, 
This is my beloved Son, 
in whom I am well 
pleased; hear ye Him. 
And when the disciples 
heard it, they fell on 
their face, and were sore 
afraid. And Jesus came 
and touched them, and 
said, Arise, and be not 
afraid. And when they 
had lifted up their eyes, 
they saw no man, save 
Jesus only. And as they 
came down from the 
mountain, Jesus 
charged them, saying, 
Tell the vision to no 
man, until the Son of 
man be risen again from 
the dead. 


Peter answered and said 
to Jesus, Master, it is 
good for us to be here: 
and let us make three 
tabernacles; one for 
Thee, and one for Moses, 
and one for Elias. For 
he wist not what to say; 
for they were sore afraid. 
And there was a cloud 
that overshadowed 
them; and a voice came 
out of the cloud, saying. 
This is my beloved Son: 
hear him. And sudden- 
ly, when they had look- 
ed round about, they 
saw no man any more, 
save Jesus only with 
themselves. And as they 
came down from the 
mountain. He charged 
them that they should 
tell no man what things 
they had seen, till the 
Son of man were risen 
from the dead. 


which He should accom- 
plish at Jerusalem. But 
Peter and they that 
were with him were 
heavy with sleep: and 
when they were awake, 
they saw His glory, and 
the two men that stood 
with Him. And it came 
to pass, as they departed 
from Him, Peter said 
unto Jesus, Master, it 
is good for us to be here: 
and let us make three 
tabernacles; one for 
Thee, and one for Moses, 
and one for Elias: not 
knowing what he said. 
While he thus spake, 
there came a cloud, and 
overshadowed them : and 
they feared as they en- 
tered into the cloud. 
And there came a voice 
out of the cloud, saying. 
This is my beloved Son: 
hear him. And when 
the voice was past, Jesus 
was found alone. And 
they kept it close, and 
told no man in those 
days any of those things 
which they had seen. 


In a few cases matter appears in St. Mark that 
is not in St. Matthew and St. Luke but there are 
very many passages where St. Matthew and St. 
Luke agree, and St. Mark is blank. Those Gos- 
pels in any event are much longer than St. Mark. 

14 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

In a Bible of the usual small size, printed in two 
columns, the length of the Gospels is as follows: 
St. Matthew, 4434 pages (28 chapters) ; St. Mark, 
28 pages (16 chapters); St. Luke, 48 pages (24 
chapters), and St. John, 35 pages (21 chapters). 
St. Mark, it will be seen, is by far the shortest of 
all. 

From the fact that the first and third Gospels 
contain virtually all of St. Mark, Bible students 
very early reached the conclusion that either there 
was an original, now disappeared, which served 
as a basis for all three Synoptic Gospels, or that 
one of these served as a basis for the other two. 
Today there is no question of the fact that St. 
Matthew and St. Luke are based on St. Mark. If, 
now, it is clear that St. Mark’s Gospel underlies 
the first and third Gospels, a very interesting 
question arises as to the source from which St. 
Matthew and St. Luke derived the matter com- 
mon to their two Gospels, and not found in St. 
Mark. This question I shall now discuss. 


15 


fllpattb eft's Collection of 
€I)e tarings of 3]e^ujss 

also tonoton as “I V’ 

I F the reader will turn again to a Harmony of 
the Gospels, he will find page after page on 
which only the first and third columns con- 
tain any printed matter, this matter being made 
up of passages common to St. Matthew and St. 
Luke and absent from St. Mark (and St. John as 
well.) Of these passages, the parable of the 
Lilies of the Field, the Story of the Centurion’s 
Servant, the Sermon on the Mount, John the 
Baptist’s Last Message, are so alike in the two 
Gospels as to immediately attract the reader’s 
attention. In order to show how very marked 
this similarity is, 1 will quote a passage familiar 
to every one. In the middle of John the Bap- 
tist’s Last Message, appears the following: 

ST. MATTHEW ST LUKE 

xi. 7-i i vii. 24-28 

And as they departed, Jesus began And when the messengers of John 
to say unto the multitudes concerning were departed. He began to speak 
John, What went ye out into the unto the people concerning John, 

16 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 


wilderness to see? A reed shaken 
with the wind? But what went ye 
out for to see? A man clothed in 
soft raiment? behold, they that wear 
soft clothing are in kings’ houses. 
But what went ye out for to see? A 
prophet? yea, I say unto you, and 
more than a prophet. For this is he, 
of whom it is written, Behold, I send 
my messenger before thy face, which 
shall prepare thy way before thee. 
Verily I say unto you, Among them 
that are born of women there hath 
not risen a greater than John the 
Baptist: nothwithstanding, he that 
is least in the kingdom of heaven is 
greater than he. 


What went ye out into the wilderness 
for to see? A reed shaken with the 
wind? But what went ye out for to 
see? A man clothed in soft raiment? 
Behold, they which are gorgeously 
apparelled, and live delicately, are in 
kings’ courts. But what went ye out 
for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say 
unto you, and much more than a 
prophet. This is he, of whom it is 
written, Behold I send my messenger 
before thy face, which shall prepare 
thy way before thee. For I say unto 
you, Among those that are born of 
women there is not a greater prophet 
than John the Baptist: but he that 
is least in the kingdom of God is 
greater than he. 


It should be further noted that St. Matthew 
and St. Luke are most similar in passages em- 
bodying Christ’s own words, and as it is sure 
that St. Matthew and St. Luke are not copied 
one from the other, it is equally evident that the 
authors of these Gospels had before them a book 
containing in any event our Saviour’s words. 
Papias again refers to just such a work by St. 
Matthew, who, he says, “composed the Logia 
in the Hebrew language,” meaning by Logia the 
words of our Saviour. 

The vast importance of a correct version of 
our Saviour’s sayings must have been in the 
minds of many an early Christian, and it seems 

17 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

but natural that steps should have been taken 
very early to preserve these words other than by 
oral tradition. St. Matthew can well have been 
the only one of the Apostles who knew how to 
write readily; he, it will be remembered, was a 
tax-officer. And nothing would be more natural 
than that he should from time to time write 
down the wonderful words that fell from our 
Saviour’s lips. Unfortunately, this collection of 
sayings has not been itself preserved, but its one 
time existence students recognize. It was writ- 
ten in Aramaic — the language of Christ — and 
seems to have been early translated into Greek, 
which was the universal language of trade and 
culture East of Rome in those days. Q_, as this 
work of St. Matthew’s is often called (Q_from 
the German “Quelle” — source, spring) is there- 
fore another work embodied in the two Gospels 
of St. Matthew and St. Luke, which thus appear 
to be made up of at least two originals, just as 
any history is based on works and manuscripts 
of others. 

It has been suggested that even St. Mark may 
have had Q_ before him. Of course, such a thing 
is far from impossible, but it is entirely specula- 
tive, whereas the existence of Q_, from which St. 

18 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

Matthew’s and St. Luke’s Gospels derived large 
portions of their version of Christ’s words, is not 
doubted. It must not be expected that these 
words appear in exactly the same form in the two 
Gospels, but I shall have occasion to refer to this 
later. Again, it is a much discussed question as 
to which Evangelist reproduced Q, most cor- 
rectly; but this, again, is a discussion which does 
not lead to any very satisfactory result. 


19 


€tje dDfojspel accottitng to £tpattljrto 

T HE Gospel according to St. Matthew has 
always been placed at the beginning of 
the New Testament, and has always' 
borne St. Matthew’s name, although from the 
earliest days it was recognized that the Apostle 
was not its author. Who the author was, is not 
known, and there is the same uncertainty as to 
its date which attaches to the other Synoptic 
Gospels; but this uncertainty relates rather to the 
question of whether a Gospel was written before 
or after A. D. 70, the date of the destruction of 
Jerusalem by Titus. St. Matthew was probably 
written before that date, and in any event, after 
St. Mark was written, for as I have already pointed 
out, St. Matthew is primarily based upon St. 
Mark. 

St. Mark’s language is not given verbatim in 
St. Matthew (nor is it so given in St. Luke), 
for neither St. Matthew nor St. Luke quotes 
20 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

St. Mark, just as neither quotes the passages 
from Q_, which both reproduce. Rather is it 
that each rewrites both sources in his own 
particular style. 

It requires but a very little reading in St. Mat- 
thew to show how totally different this Gospel is 
from St. Mark or St. Luke. Especially in the 
earlier part of the Gospel the constant reference 
by the Evangelist to the fulfillment of prophecies 
is noticeable and every one has been struck with 
the oft repeated phrase: “That it might be ful- 
filled which was spoken by” such and such a 
prophet. This alone gives St. Matthew a char- 
acter peculiar to itself. 

There are a considerable number of passages 
in St. Matthew and St. Mark which are not in 
St. Luke, and while as between the two latter 
Gospels a similar condition of things exists, this 
peculiarity is more common as between St. Mat- 
thew and St. Mark. The story of the Syrophoe- 
nician Woman, with the pathetic appeal to 
Christ, “Yea, Lord, even the dogs under the 
table eat of the children’s crumbs,” that of the 
Feeding of the Four Thousand, and the Discourse 
on Eating with Unwashed Hands, are all in St. 
Matthew and St. Mark, but not in St. Luke (or St. 


21 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

John, for that matter). The similarity of the 
Story of the Feeding of the Four Thousand is so 
great that I think it will be interesting to give the 
two passages: 


ST. MATTHEW 

xv. 32-38 

Then Jesus called His disciples 
unto Him, and said, I have com- 
passion on the multitude, because 
they continue with me now three 
days, and have nothing to eat: and 
I will not send them away fasting, 
lest they faint in the way. And 
His disciples say unto Him, Whence 
should we have so much bread in the 
wilderness, as to fill so great a multi- 
tude? And Jesus saith unto them, 
How many loaves have ye? And 
they said, Seven, and a few little 
fishes. And He commanded the 
multitude to sit down on the ground. 
And He took the seven loaves and 
the fishes, and gave thanks, and 
brake them, and gave to His dis- 
ciples, and the disciples to the multi- 
tude. And they did all eat, and were 
filled : and they took up of the broken 
meat that was left seven baskets 
full. And they that did eat were 
four thousand men, beside women 
and children. 


ST. MARK 
VIII. 1-9 

In those days the multitude being 
very great, and having nothing to 
eat, Jesus called His disciples unto 
Him, and saith unto them, I have 
compassion on the multitude, be- 
cause they have now been with me 
three days, and have nothing to eat: 
And if I send them away fasting to 
their own houses, they will faint by 
the way: for divers of them came 
from far. And His disciples an- 
swered Him, From whence can a man 
satisfy these men with bread here 
in the wilderness? And He asked 
them, How many loaves have ye? 
And they said, Seven. And He 
commanded the people to sit down 
on the ground: and He took the 
seven loaves, and gave thanks, and 
brake, and gave to His disciples to 
set before them; and they did set 
them before the people. And they 
had a few small fishes: and He 
blessed, and commanded to set them 
also before them. So they did eat, 
and were filled: and they took up of 
the broken meat that was left seven 
baskets. And they that had eaten 
were about four thousand: and He 
sent them away. 


Then, too, St. Matthew contains a number of 
familiar passages not to be found elsewhere, 


22 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

of which the following are the best known : the 
Story of the Magi, the Flight into Egypt, the Par- 
able of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. We shall 
find a similar condition of things in St. Luke and 
St. John, just as we have already noticed it in St. 
Mark. It would be useless to speculate on the 
origin of the many passages in one Gospel which 
do not appear in the others, for it is impossible 
to ascertain how the Evangelists proceeded to 
make use of the written sources and the oral tradi- 
tions they may have had at hand. 

Far more remarkable, as I have already pointed 
out, is the similarity of passages in St. Matthew 
and St. Luke containing sayings by our Saviour 
not found elsewhere, and of which QJs the sup- 
posed original. 1 have already spoken of the 
story of the Centurion’s Servant, and commented 
at length on the last Message of John the Baptist. 
Both Gospels have the Sermon on the Mount, 
but St. Matthew’s version is at least three times 
as long as St. Luke’s. This particular passage 
has raised the very interesting question of how 
the Sermon was really given. It appears that 
most of what St. Luke has seemingly omitted is 
given by him elsewhere, scattered through his 
Gospel, and it has hence been urged that St. 

23 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

Matthew put into the Sermon on the Mount say- 
ings which fitted or appeared to fit in appro- 
priately. But it seems to me that the matter could 
just as reasonably be argued the other way 
around, and while this may be an interesting 
discussion, it is not a very useful one. Both St. 
Matthew and St. Luke give Christ’s genealogy, 
but while St. Matthew begins with Abraham, 
St. Luke begins with Christ and goes backward; 
the two genealogies are not at all the same. 
Both Evangelists tell the story of Christ’s birth 
and again the story is differently given. These 
passages are not in the other two Gospels. 

As St. Matthew’s Gospel was written, it is be- 
lieved, at Jerusalem, at all events in Palestine, 
students find in it strong Hebraic characteristics, 
wholly outside of the distinctive features to which 
1 have referred. It is a much less poetic produc- 
tion than St. Luke, and is a rather dryer narrative 
than St. Mark. 


24 


C&e (Bosspel accorlrtng to ^t. Hu6e 

HE last of the Synoptic Gospels, that ac- 



cording to St. Luke, is the longest of all 


A four of the Gospels. It is the one Gospel 
about whose authorship there has been the least 
discussion, for it has generally been admitted 
from the earliest days that Luke, who is referred 
to as “the beloved physician” in Colossians IV. 
14, is the author of both this Gospel and of Acts. 
Both books are dedicated, as we would say today, 
to Theophilus, but who Theophilus was is not 
known. 

The introduction to the Gospel states in so 
many words that others have undertaken to 
write of Christ’s ministry, and as I have said, St. 
Luke based his Gospel primarily on St. Mark, 
using for his other matter, Q, among other 
works. St. Luke certainly must have had be- 
fore him a considerable lot of matter, either 
unknown to the other Evangelists, including St. 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

John, or, if known to them, purposely omitted 
by them from their books. Thus, the birth of 
John the Baptist and all its attendant details, in- 
cluding Mary’s remarkable visit to Elizabeth, 
and Zacharias’ hymn, are not to be found else- 
where, although a very curious paraphrase of the 
birth of John is given in the New Testament 
Apocrypha, as applied to the birth of the Vir- 
gin Mary. The story of the Angels and the 
Shepherds, which every childs loves; that of 
Christ arguing as a boy with the Elders; the story 
of the Good Samaritan; the Prodigal Son; the 
Penitent Thief at the Crucifixion — all these are 
told by St. Luke alone, and no part of them ap- 
pears elsewhere. 

Another matter worth referring to is this : that 
frequently discourses which appear in both St. 
Luke and St. Matthew do not occur in the same 
order or in connection with the same incidents. 
Thus, most of the contents of Chapter XI. to 
XVII., while in St. Matthew are not in that 
Gospel in any such connected form or at all in 
the same sequence. The terrible denunciation 
of the Scribes and Pharisees is given in St. Luke 
as being made before Passion Week; in St. 
Matthew as during that week. I have already 

26 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

referred to the difference between the two ver- 
sions of the Sermon on the Mount. 

It will be noticed that what St. Matthew and 
St. Luke derived from St. Mark is generally in the 
same order as given by St. Mark, but again St. 
Luke and St. Mark agree on passages which do 
not appear in the first Gospel. The most im- 
portant of these is the Ascension, the omission 
of which by St. Matthew (and by St. John, as 
well) I repeat is hard to understand. And yet it 
is considered by some that this passage in St. 
Mark is not part of the original Gospel while 
stranger still, St. Luke, as an author, gives it 
twice — in his Gospel and again in Acts. This 
last fact has raised several hard problems for 
Bible students to ponder over, without, how- 
ever, any solution being offered, as no reason 
can be advanced why St. Matthew and St. John 
should have omitted an event which is certainly 
suggested by both. (See St. Matthew, Chapter 
XXIV. and St. John, Chapters III. and VI.). It is 
as remarkable in its way as the absence of all 
allusion to Lazarus except in St. John’s Gospel, 
and of all reference to St. Peter after the Xll 
chapter of Acts. 

I will quote a passage from St. Mark and St. 

27 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

Luke, to show the similarity of language. Of the 
Miracles at Capernaum, the first read as follows: 


ST. MARK 

i. 21-34 

And they went into Capernaum; 
and straightway on the sabbath day 
He entered into the synagogue, and 
taught. And they were astonished 
at His doctrine: for He taught them 
as one that had authority, and not as 
the scribes. And there was in their 
synagogue a man with an unclean 
spirit; and he cried out, Saying, Let 
us alone; what have we to do with 
Thee, Thou Jesus of Nazareth? art 
Thou come to destroy us? I know 
Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of 
God. And Jesus rebuked him, say- 
ing, Hold thy peace, and come out 
of him. And when the unclean 
spirit had torn him, and cried with 
a loud voice, he came out of him. 
And they were all amazed, insomuch 
that they questioned among them- 
selves, saying, What thing is this? 
what new doctrine is this? For with 
authority commandeth He even the 
unclean spirits, and they do obey 
Him. And immediately His fame 
spread abroad throughout all the 
region round about Galilee. And 
forthwith, when they were come out 
of the synagogue, they entered into 
the house of Simon and Andrew, 
with James and John. But Simon’s 
Wife’s mother lay sick of a fever; and 
anon they tell Him of her. And He 
came and took her by the hand, and 
lifted her up; and immediately the 
fever left her, and she ministered 


ST. LUKE 

iv. 30-41 

But He, passing through the 
midst of them, went His way, And 
came down to Capernaum, a city of 
Galilee, and taught them on the 
sabbath days. And they were 
astonished at His doctrine: for His 
word was with power. And in the 
synagogue there was a man, which 
had a spirit of an unclean devil, and 
cried out with a loud voice, Saying, 
Let us alone; what have we to do 
with Thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? 
art Thou come to destroy us? I 
know Thee who Thou art; the Holy 
One of God. And Jesus rebuked 
him, saying, Hold thy peace, and 
come out of him. And when the 
devil had thrown him in the midst, 
he came out of him, and hurt him 
not. And they were all amazed, and 
spake among themselves, saying. 
What a word is this? For with 
authority and power He command- 
eth the unclean spirits, and they 
come out. And the fame of Him 
went out into every place of the 
country round about. And He 
arose out of the synagogue, and 
entered into Simon’s house. And 
Simon's wife’s mother was taken 
with a great fever; and they be- 
sought Him for her. And He stood 
over her, and rebuked the fever; 
and it left her: and immediately she 
arose and ministered unto them. 
Now when the sun was setting, all 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 


unto them. And at even, when the 
sun did set, they brought unto Him 
all that were diseased, and them 
that were possessed with devils. And 
all the city was gathered together 
at the door. And he healed many 
that were sick of divers diseases, 
and cast out many devils; and suf- 
fered not the devils to speak, be- 
cause they knew him. 


they that had any sick with divers 
diseases brought them unto Him; 
and He laid His hands on every one 
of them, and healed them. And 
devils also came out of many, crying 
out, and saying, Thou art Christ the 
Son of God. And He rebuking them 
suffered them not to speak: for they 
knew that He was Christ. 


It has been ably argued that certain passages in 
St. Luke’s Gospel clearly indicate that it was not 
written until after the destruction of Jerusalem. 

I cannot pretend to pass upon such a question. 
Each Gospel is a history of the same general 
events, and the several authors were clearly men 
of strong individuality. While practically noth- 
ing is known of them, it is very evident that each 
wrote under different inspiration, as well as prob- 
ably with different surroundings; each used a 
different style, and approached the subject, it 
would seem, from a different theological point of 
view. While this latter is not so readily notice- 
able to a layman with the Synoptic Gospels, it is 
very apparent if these are compared with the 
Gospel according to St. John. 


29 


Ctye (Bojipel accortring to &t, 3!ob« 

F ROM the first verse of the Gospel of St. John 
it is very evident to even a casual reader, 
that he is beginning a book of a totally 
different character from the Synoptic Gospels. 
No doubt every one who reads the Gospels has 
pondered over the meaning of the words: 

“In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God,” 

a sentence exceedingly difficult for the ordinary 
mind to comprehend. 

And as the reader progresses in this Gospel he 
finds more and more passages which introduce 
into thestoryofChrist’slifeandministry an element 
of mysticism, as well as a manner of thought and 
expression, very far removed from the wonderful 
simplicity and clearness of His words, as given 
by the other Evangelists. Passages like the Dis- 
30 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

course with Nicodemus (Ch. III.), the Samaritan 
Woman at the Well (Ch. IV.), and the Raising 
of Lazarus (Ch. XL), contain references to Water 
and the Spirit, the Living Water, the Resurrection 
and the Life, while elsewhere we find symbolisms 
of the Bread of Life, of the Light of the World, 
of Water and Blood. The lessons drawn from 
the stories in this Gospel (parables there are few 
in St. John; allegories, however, are frequent), as 
well as the stories themselves, are as different in 
character as the language in which they are told 
is different from that of the other Evangelists. 
Compare the parable of the Sower and its 
lesson (Matthew XIII., Mark IV., Luke VIII.) 
with the parable of the Good Shepherd (John 
X.), and its lesson, and the difference in lan- 
guage and spirit is readily seen. Even more 
than that, there is a very great difference in the 
clearness of thought of the two, the former, to 
my mind, being much the clearer. Indeed, it 
soon becomes evident that we are reading in St. 
John a philosophical and theological treatise, not 
a mere story of our Lord as in the other Gospels. 

One explanation of this difference between St. 
John and the other Gospels is, that St. John was 
written at a very much later date than the latest 

3 l 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

Synoptic Gospel, that is, about twenty-five years 
after St. Luke. At that time — about 90 A. D. — 
the preaching of Christ had become an established 
religion, and was known not only in Asia, but in 
Greece and Rome. Its influence must have begun 
to be very great in the civilized world, and what- 
ever they may have failed to say about it in their 
writings, the men of intelligence of those days 
must have realized that Christianity was an in- 
tellectual and moral force, superior to anything 
hitherto known, and that it was constantly in- 
creasing in spite of all opposition. To what 
extent men like Seneca, Pliny the Elder or Tacitus 
thought of the superiority of Christian over Roman 
morality, is not known; that they must have 
thought about it cannot be doubted. 

With this growth and spread of Christianity 
necessarily arose discussions as to the meaning of 
Christ’s words. It must be remembered that long 
before Jerusalem was destroyed serious disagree- 
ments had arisen even between Peter and Paul, 
and the latter had written a very severe rebuke 
of Peter’s theology in the Epistle to the Galatians 
(Ch. II. v. 1 1, etc.) Now the Gospel according to 
St. John was written, not in Palestine, but in a 
Greek community — either Patmos or Ephesus- 

32 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

and hence in a totally different atmosphere from 
the others. For if St. Mark was written at Rome, 
as some think, it was written in close association 
with St. Peter, and long before Christianity had 
begun to indulge in philosophical discussions 
of religion. And so this Gospel of St. John was 
written, I think, with the intent of giving an 
interpretation of Christ’s words from a theologian 
philosopher’s point of view, because such an inter- 
pretation then appeared necessary, and appealed 
to the author’s followers, who were accustomed to 
philosophical discussion, unknown to Palestine. 
How the beloved disciple, a simple Galilean fisher- 
man, came to develop a mentality so at variance 
with his early life, is not quite as astonishing to an 
American as it may be to a European, for we have 
too many examples of the rise of men of humble 
origin to dominating intellectual positions. 

Much has been said about the authorship of 
this Gospel, but 1 am inclined to believe the 
Apostle John wrote it. It has been pointed out 
that John of all men would not have written about 
himself, the beloved disciple, as the author does; 
but Zebedee’s children were certainly not lacking 
in self-appreciation, as appears from St Matthew 
(Ch. XX.) and St. Mark (Ch. X.) The martyr- 

33 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

dom of St. John, it must be admitted, appears, 
according to early traditions, to have taken place 
a considerable time before the Gospel is said to 
have been written, but this is a most difficult 
matter to settle as there are no specific statements 
of dates in any of the old books. To me the end- 
ing of this Gospel seems strange, for the reason 
that it is there taken for granted that people will 
be interested in the author, and it appears that 
even just after the Resurrection, there was a dis- 
agreement about John’s fate. This interjection 
into the Gospel of the author’s personality is en- 
tirely at variance with the spirit of the other three. 

1 have been obliged to go somewhat into the 
theological side of this Gospel as it is something 
which cannot well be avoided; but there are many 
other very marked differences between St. John 
and the other Evangelists. Like St. Mark, he 
begins with John the Baptist’s mission, but un- 
like any of the others, he constantly goes into 
details in his stories with unusual, if not unneces- 
sary care. This characteristic is so evident that 
it does not seem necessary to cite examples, but 
it suggests that John had personal knowledge of 
many facts, as well as a love of detail. At the 
same time, this detail, and an occasional diffu- 

34 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

siveness — I will not call it verbosity — as in the 
case of the story of the Man Born Blind, indicate 
an entirely different order of mind in the author, 
from that of the other Evangelists. How these 
details were preserved so that a man of about 
ninety years of age could write them down, is 
not known. 

St. John, it is generally believed, had in his 
hands the other three Gospels, and in a few 
instances, his language follows that of the other 
three fairly closely. The Feeding of the Five 
Thousand, for example, is very much the same 
in language in St. John and the Synoptic Gospels. 
In those Gospels, our Saviour’s discourses as a 
rule are brief and concise; not so in St. John. 
Thus, what our Saviour said at the Last Supper 
takes up but a few verses in the other Gospels, 
but runs through all of four chapters and a part 
of a fifth in St. John. And yet he omits all ref- 
erence to the institution of the Lord’s Supper. 
Incidentally, these chapters seem to be in wrong 
sequence, if the words, “Arise, let us go hence,” 
at the end of Chapter XIV. are in their right 
place. I do not like to think that St. John elab- 
orated our Saviour’s words, as historians of 
ancient days were wont to do with the orations 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

of men of whom they wrote, but while these very 
chapters are full of beautiful sentences, they con- 
tain others which are intricate and utterly lacking 
in the simplicity of our Saviour’s discourses as 
given in the other Gospels. 

The first twelve chapters of St. John contain a 
great deal of matter not in the other Gospels. 
Whence this matter is derived is, of course, quite 
unknown, and yet some of it is of singular 
importance. Chapter V., for example, contains 
the story of the Infirm Man at the Pool of 
Bethesda, of which no mention whatever is made 
elsewhere. The earliest miracle, that of turning 
water into wine, is told by St. John alone (Ch. II. 
1-1 1), and while it is rather of minor importance, 
it is on this incident that is based to some ex- 
tent the claim of the Virgin’s power of inter- 
cession by the Roman Catholic Church. But 
why the Raising of Lazarus (Ch. XI.) is not 
mentioned by the other Evangelists is, as I have 
said, very remarkable, for not only is the miracle 
itself wonderful, but the whole story is full of 
beautiful sayings, and here alone is recorded the 
fact that our Saviour wept over His friend’s 
death. On the other hand, it is equally incom- 
prehensible that St. John fails to tell the story of 
36 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

the Ascension at all, and it is strange that St. John, 
who seems to have been a man of the most lov- 
able nature, should not have made mention of 
the Blessing of Little Children, or the Raising of 
Jairus’s Daughter and its attendant incidents — to 
mention but two events. 

There is one other matter which cannot be 
passed over, and that is, the difficulty of explain- 
ing the presence of so many sayings by our Lord 
which are not recorded by the other Evangelists. 
It is quite true that we have observed a not dis- 
similar situation as between St. Mark, on the one 
hand, and St. Matthew and St. Luke on the other. 
There is, however, a satisfactory explanation of 
this in the existence of Q_. Furthermore, as we 
have seen, there is matter in St. Matthew not 
in St. Luke and vice versa, but this matter is 
not extensive as far as Christ’s sayings are con- 
cerned. But with St. John, things are entirely 
different. Thus, the long Discourse on the Bread 
of Life (Ch. VI.), that on the Light of the World 
and on Spiritual Freedom (Ch. VIII.), that on the 
Good Shepherd (Ch. X.), contain nothing which 
can be found elsewhere. It is not difficult to 
understand that different authors should have 
omitted different matter or have given different 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

sayings in a slightly different manner, and have 
written in different styles. But it is, to me at 
least, inexplicable why St. John alone should 
have so many allegorical and mystical sayings of 
our Saviour (for all these passages are of this 
character) of which no trace is to be found in the 
other Gospels. It is quite impossible to believe 
that our Saviour talked in two different styles, 
and long before 1 began my present study, I used 
to think that the first three Gospels probably 
came nearer to our Saviour’s own words than 
did St. John, and I think so all the more today. 
Nor have 1 ever been able to make out how the 
uneducated multitude, to whom our Saviour 
spoke most frequently, could have understood 
the meaning of many passages in St. John. 

Much more could be said on the subject of this 
Gospel — but I have already said more than may be 
necessary. The cause of the many polemics over 
St. John appears to me to be that he frequently 
gave his version of our Saviour’s words, not those 
words themselves, or added his elucidation of their 
meaning. Even if a layman feels sometimes like 
quoting St. John: “This is a hard saying, who can 
hear it?” there is no denying the beauty of St. 
John’s rendering of many of our Saviour’s words. 

38 


ConcUijSfott 

T HESE four Gospels are the only ones 
which from the earliest days were recog- 
nized as being canonical, and if any one 
will take the trouble to look at the so-called 
Apocrypha of the New Testament, he will agree 
with the wisdom of those who established what 
is known as the Canon. For these apocryphal 
books have very little to commend them, and 
chapter after chapter are full of grotesque and 
fairy-like tales. 

There does not appear to be any sure method 
of determining the exact chronology of our 
Saviour’s ministry, but it must not be forgotten 
that the Gospels are the only existing genuine 
histories of His life, and that they are the only 
books, dating from a time reasonably near His 
ministry, in which His works and discourses are 
given. 

There is one thing that has always impressed 

39 


THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN 

me, and that is, the simplicity of our Saviour’s 
language, at all events in the first three Gospels. 
And yet consider how folios of disputes have 
been written on the meaning of what He said, 
and how men and women have suffered torture 
and been put to death, because they refused to ac- 
cept some self-constituted human authority’s in- 
terpretation of His sayings. ‘ ‘No man ever spake 
like this man,” as is said in the Gospel of our 
Saviour, and no man’s words have produced so 
marvelous a change in mankind. The few pages 
of the Gospels have had a greater influence on 
the world than all the rest of its literature put 
together. 

I do not believe knowledge of what I have 
written above can affect a person’s belief, except 
to strengthen it, and I fail to understand why the 
subject is never mentioned in church. 


40 


The following books are among those in which 
the history of the Gospels is most conveniently 
to be studied: 

A Harmony of the Gospels, by Stevens & 
Burton. 

A Critical Introduction to the New Testa- 
ment, by Peake. 

The Text and Canon of the New Testament, 
by Souter. 

The Making of the New Testament, by Bacon. 

The History of Early Christian Literature, 
by v. Soden. 

Moffat’s Introduction to the Literature of the 
New Testament is not as convenient for a layman 
as the others. It is too full of Latin and Greek. 



I 


1 







I , 
















g 






- 


























t 

• . 



















•• 














































* 


















































1 
1 




















































































































' 










. ’ 


































































































' 














































































% 











